Should leftist organizations sell newspapers?

[getfiscal]

I subscribe to a number of newspapers by radical leftist organizations. I like to see where people are at in their little groups. These papers tend to be terribly written and overpriced. That's part of why almost no one reads them.

Moreover, people selling newspapers are annoying and it all feels a bit parasitic. As in, people are out to support a cause at a protest and you're lingering at the back with a bunch of copies of The Worker's Klaxon or whatever trying to hook them young.

At the same time, it is a traditional way of spreading ideas and sometimes help raise a bit of revenue and keeps the organization active. It gives new members something to do. And ideally these papers would end up having millions of subscribers.

What say you?

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

They're old "technology". 99.99% of people only use mass media sites now, which is what we should be using to inform the masses. :rolleyes:

[Prometeo liberado]

I was always of the opinion that the actual act of selling papers enables the organization to communicate with the public on a more personal level that is not possible via the internet. What I do question is whether it is cost effective vs. the net. Is print a dead medium for the left? Maybe, but if it is it will come at the cost leftist interacting with the public outside of a demonstration setting.

[workersadvocate]

Biggest mistake isn't even the old methods, but the missionary-recruiter hustle that comes along with the newspaper selling.

If the first time working people see your sect is while selling papers, they may think "where have you been?" And "what have you guys really done for working people like me?"

Working people who wanna "do something" tend to first turn to the left groups involved in "activism" and who put out slicker media. In time, we realize that this is a self-perpetuating small business scheme...not trying to go to the working class and organize, but just building itself for its own sake. On top of that is internal stratification and drama in the activist middle class dominated left groups...you have fulltime privileged thinker-leaders (usually the group founders, legally owning proprietors), middle managers, and underdeveloped busy-bodied worker pawns in these scenes. Just like working people find in society and the economy generally.

If working people don't know your group, perhaps we have no reason to acknowledge it. Wanna be "vanguard"? Then you got no business cut off from the working class, and you got a lot of work to do to earn your keep. Leaving pur class in its present condition means you ain't really about us, judt for your srct, just for face-time in the media at "activist" events.

Just imagine if a left group tried to actually educate and organize our working class itself, preparing our class for times when it will self-initate class-for-itself action, and only then when it has been earned do these left groups ask for us to recognize them. How about they actually serve the working class for a change?

[Prometeo liberado]

Biggest mistake isn't even the old methods, but the missionary-recruiter hustle that comes along with the newspaper selling.

underdeveloped busy-bodied worker pawns in these scenes

These two lines are not only so awfully true but have also been gone over in countless meetings. New people are left to ideologically fend for themselves. And who suffers? The organization, the paper sales, the cadre and most importantly our credibility. And to some extent it is a hustle. I refuse to think that the middle managers and the leadership don't know. It takes work to prepare people for this shit and I doubt that those in charge are oblivious to that. Laziness and indifference by left careerist will kill a paper before the net can.
Thanks workersadvocate.

[The Idler]

Perhaps newspapers are less effective than they are thought to be. The jurys out on whether they're actually counterintuitive and they're certainly not mutually exclusive to internet publicity.

[Q]

Perhaps newspapers are less effective than they are thought to be. The jurys out on whether they're actually counterintuitive and they're certainly not mutually exclusive to internet publicity.

In a few years time, I bet most people will read their news on some type of electronic substitute for paper, like iPads. I doubt many mainstream newspapers will survive in their current form, let alone small left ones.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I am part of an organization which has its members sell their papers... haven't actually sold any yet; have no interest in it and is almost pointless in my area anyway.

I see newspaper selling as something which is like a side diversion once someone has been radicalized rather than an actual radicalizing tool in itself.It can help for sure but it isn't something I would rely on to any significant degree.

[Marvin the Marxian]

@workersadvocate

I fully agree with your post. Too many people focus on promoting their own groups and getting media exposure. How does that raise class consciousness for the working class?

Any newspapers, flyers, leaflets, etc. should be distributed for free. Workers have a hard enough time as it is, especially in an economy like this one. Offering information free of charge expresses a willingness to sacrifice one's personal time, effort, and money for the greater goal of educating and organizing the working class. If people want to provide donations, that's fine. If they want to become regular free subscribers, that's fine too.

The object should always be to educate and organize the working class as a class. There's no room in that mission for personal egos and empire-building. It's not about who educates and organizes the working class the most - it's simply about how educated and organized it becomes.

[Q]

I see newspaper selling as something which is like a side diversion once someone has been radicalized rather than an actual radicalizing tool in itself.It can help for sure but it isn't something I would rely on to any significant degree.

I believe this is an important point to make.

Most leftist publications act as agitationary media: They try to get across one or a few ideas (like, "we need to strike!") across to "the masses". But this is often extremely ineffective, as the concerned groups are often very small, meaning they have small resources, which in turn can be seen in the quality of the media (often it's just a copy-print) and the frequency by which it is released(often just once a month, making the term "newspaper" sound like overkill).

Furthermore, the targeted audience ("the masses") is never targeted in the way it is supposed to. For most of the leftist publications get read by people who already are on the left and already know the basic agitation. By the time you actually reach ordinary workers with your paper, they are most likely already in strike, meaning your agitation is superfluous anyway.

This does seem like a grand waste of time, effort and money for everyone involved.

What we need therefore, right now, is not an agitationary publication, but a propagandizing one: One where many ideas and concepts are explained and elaborated, best through debate, to a small audience (that is, those people who were already on the left anyway). It is better to train this small audience in the ideas of Marxism (again, best through debating, so they themselves start to think) and in the process be trained as workers-leaders.

Sure, thinking workers-leaders might not join your particular group, but their ability to organize, agitate and educate other workers is very much worth the effort I would think.

In the long term such a culture of "unity in disagreement", where people are free to debate their ideas, will most likely also lead to unity. This is after all a basic tendency of the working class movement, but can only happen if it is voluntary and democratic. On this basis can a politicized movement also be built: One that has the resources to have a good, professional, daily agitationary publication, throughout the nation and perhaps the continent or the world.

[Bostana]

Hell Yeah.
I wouldn't mind reading The Worker

[Veovis]

They're old "technology". 99.99% of people only use mass media sites now, which is what we should be using to inform the masses. :rolleyes:

A lot of older and poor workers do not use the internet at all, so selling papers is one of the only ways to reach a rather large target demographic.

[Pretty Flaco]

It's a big waste of time, ink, paper, and money.

[Arlekino]

For leftist organisation need to get some funds and more involve working class, as myself I did few years ago selling papers it was challenge how many papers to be sold, there was pushing to sell more and more which I felt like business approach.
What it would be better if most of workers reading right wing papers and workers can afford "Daily Mail", "Sun", or other right wing papers,

[Kotze]

Bah, that reminds me of meeting somebody from the SAV (Sozialistische Alternative, German Trots) a couple years ago at a demonstration.

We talked about how Die Linke shouldn't discriminate against them (it was hard for their higher-ups to get membership at that time), and it was an okay conversation until he tried to sell me his shit.

He: *moves closer to me with the "Solidarität" newspapers*
Me: Oh, I know that issue already.
Him: :confused:
Me: I know your website, sozialismus.info (http://sozialismus.info/).
Him: :)
Me: And you can freely download the newspaper as a PDF.
Him: :) *gets even closer*
Me: And uh, I already read that very issue.
Him: :)
Me: Err, that uh, means I don't see the need to uh... ahh I have to go, bye.
Him: :crying:

He really had a puppy face. A grown man with that face. After that probably got beaten up by Lucy Redler for failing quota, lol.

Speaking of that semi-monthly newspaper (http://www.sozialismus.info/?sid=644), meh. Handing out newspapers at a demonstration or convention that do not directly address that event feels kinda spammy to me. And trying to sell, the nerve! You know, there were other groups giving away stuff with higher production value. I think it's better to hand out flyers that are first and foremost about on-topic arguments and contain contact information (web and offline).

Also: Make appeals to self-interest. Make economic arguments about now and the future. The following may sound extreme, it's true though: Nobody outside of political sects cares about history. Nobody cares, whether it's Trot or Anarchist or whatever history. Nobody cares. Nobody outside of Revleft cares how often Stalin farted at the Yalta conference.

N O B O D Y. Really.

[Arlekino]

He really had a puppy face. A grown man with that face. After that probably got beaten up by Lucy Redler for failing quota, lol.

Sure why leftist got that kind of face? Are you got a problem how people are look like?

[Q]

He really had a puppy face. A grown man with that face. After that probably got beaten up by Lucy Redler for failing quota, lol.



Sure why leftist got that kind of face? Are you got a problem how people are look like?

The awkward moment when a German beats someone from England in the English language.

(Sorry, offtopic, but I couldn't restrain myself).

[Bostana]

It's a big waste of time, ink, paper, and money.

Not Really

[Kotze]

:lol:

Q, that person who lives in England wasn't born there.

@Rasyte: Unlike baby face, puppy face refers to a facial expression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppy_face), which is something people normally should have some control over, innit blad.

[blake 3:17]

Nobody outside of political sects cares about history.

That isn't true. But regarding some goofy dispute between Tito, Mandel and Mao, yes.

[blake 3:17]

It's a big waste of time, ink, paper, and money.

Yep. In the regions I`m familiar with it makes more sense to make a good website with announcement list, develop a photo and video channel, and print good quality posters and more substantive booklets.

[Prometeo liberado]

Perhaps newspapers are less effective than they are thought to be. The jurys out on whether they're actually counterintuitive and they're certainly not mutually exclusive to internet publicity.

The paper itself is secondary I feel. The very act of personal communication from those selling the paper to those inquiring about the message is far more paramount.

[Q]

The paper itself is secondary I feel. The very act of personal communication from those selling the paper to those inquiring about the message is far more paramount.

So, leftist papers are basically a very expensive form of pickup line?

You don't need a paper to talk to people. Leaflets often do quite as well and I'm sure there are many other ways to think of.

[Искра]

What is purpose of leftist papers? Usually, the purpose of these papers is to show how your organisation produces papers, so that you can say to other groups: AH, you don't even have papers... while we have papers in colour and theoretical journal...

I mean in 21st century papers are quite expensive and for that price they are quite useless. Internet is cheep and quite better. Also, more and more people can read articles on Internet and participate in discussion which is quite important.

But still, you can't reduce your work on Internet, because you'll get lost in the 0's and 1's. Which is why there's allways a need of printed material such as small bulletines which you give workers for free and which should you use to present your views etc.

So, nobody cares about newspapers - you have an Internet and small bulletines without boring shit about history etc. with direct message to workers with which they can relate to.

[Crux]

What is purpose of leftist papers? Usually, the purpose of these papers is to show how your organisation produces papers, so that you can say to other groups: AH, you don't even have papers... while we have papers in colour and theoretical journal...

I mean in 21st century papers are quite expensive and for that price they are quite useless. Internet is cheep and quite better. Also, more and more people can read articles on Internet and participate in discussion which is quite important.

But still, you can't reduce your work on Internet, because you'll get lost in the 0's and 1's. Which is why there's allways a need of printed material such as small bulletines which you give workers for free and which should you use to present your views etc.

So, nobody cares about newspapers - you have an Internet and small bulletines without boring shit about history etc. with direct message to workers with which they can relate to.
I disagree strongly, and from experience. Our weekly paper is a fundamental part of our organization. And while it might not be apparently obvious to, well, other leftists basically, the paper plays a big role in our ability to gain and keep in touch with our sympathisers. Selling papers is also a weekly activity, so in both producing and selling the paper is also playing a role for the organization itself, as well as a source of funds as well of course. We strive to have as many comrades as possible writing for the paper (and our blogs) and this too plays a role in schooling our cadre, as well as the opening up of oppurtunities in doing interviews etc as an additional way to reach out.

[Искра]

Well I've also wrote from experience. I believe what I've wrote. Maybe the difference is in aims and role of "organisation"... and of course - in funds.

[Welshy]

I hated selling newspapers when I was in an organization. I felt like a combination of a missionary and a salesman and when I was on the other end of it I felt like I was being sold something by some conartist who just wanted to talk about their organization and, in the case of the guy from the SWP, Cuba. To be honest I had better conversations with workers when I wasn't trying to give them anything (no newspapers, pamphlets, or newspapers). In these cases the workers opened up, talked about their experiences as workers during which they always expressed angry towards capitalism and their bosses. Newspapers are just a crutch and put us (the leftist) in to a position of preaching to the worker, which I think is harmful. This isn't to say I think we should have them at all but they need to play a secondary role and should be in a place where workers can take them as they please. Same goes with other things like pamphlets and leaflets.

[Искра]

From my experience it's good to give leaflet or bulettien to workers because you get an opportunity to start a conversation....

[Olentzero]

Exactly. I've never been very good at it myself, but having an extra copy of SW or Offensiv in my coat pocket when I head down to the bar or wherever (outside of regularly scheduled sales) has proven to be fairly useful in pushing a conversation further politically.

Papers are also useful if (as Majakovskij said) as many members as possible are writing for it; if people are writing about what's going on in their neck of the woods, the paper can carry that to people elsewhere in the country (or even around the world). Or there could be cultural stuff that sparks debate and discussion.

Giving the paper away for free is pretty much a mistake for a number of reasons, although income for the party/organization is usually not one of them (SW always published at a loss). Giving a paper away for free gives individual comrades the easy way out of just holding one up and trying to get it into somebody's hand with little to no effort, which means the person who takes it isn't really going to pay it much attention. On the other hand, if a prospective reader hands over a dollar for the paper, it's much more likely he or she will hold on to it and read it because, well, they paid for it. I remember some of the big demonstrations down on the National Mall in Washington; late in the afternoon when people started to go home you'd see hundreds of the free papers littering the grounds, but very rarely a copy of SW.

Which brings me to my next point, one already mentioned by several others: getting people to buy the paper. I sympathize with Welshy because I used to hate selling the paper, too; I'm still not all that good at it even now. But here, again, it's all about taking the opportunity to start a conversation, not just hawking a paper. One of the best comrades I ever saw in action at a paper sale didn't even start with the paper, even though he had it in his hand so people could see he was selling it. He'd just ask a passerby a question about a current issue - maybe the headline article, maybe something else in the news - and take it from there. It rarely failed.

Finally, being able to sell the paper means knowing the damn thing inside out every week (or however often it comes out). Which means sitting down and reading it, or discussing it with other comrades. It's the only way you'll be able to work the paper into a conversation, because you know what's in it and more often than not you'll think of an article in there that's relevant to the conversation. Then you can pull out a copy, open to the article, and take it from there. Bingo, a likely sale and a possible future contact.

I'll wrap it up by referring to Lenin's description of the Party newspaper as its scaffolding. There may be quicker ways to get small bits of information to lots of people through social media, but there's no better way to supplement a conversation with a total stranger on the street or over a beer and no better way to get your party's politics directly into people's hands. Until everyone in the world gets an iPad or something.

[Quail]

I think papers can be good. The Anarchist Federation give our news bulletin out for free. We distribute it to people on the street, outside the station, etc. I think it's useful for letting people know that we're active and that we exist, as well as for actually getting out some ideas.

As a couple of others have pointed out, it's not really getting much of a message out if the only people reading a paper are people who are already leftists. A paper needs to be accessible to the general population, and not just a place to criticise other organisations.

I think some groups can be a bit obnoxious about selling papers. For example, if people from an organisation just rock up to a picket where they don't actually know any of the workers and just try to sell papers and recruit members. I think that's counter-productive because it makes that organisation appear as though they care more about selling papers and recruiting members than actually supporting a struggle. It can be very cringe worthy to watch.

So to summarise, I do think that papers are still useful despite advances in technology, but learn to recognise when they can be useful and when they're just a little pointless or even harmful to the cause.

[Martin Blank]

The old-style print newspapers are obsolete, both historically and practically. And I say this as someone who has been working on newspapers for more than 20 years. Beyond the ever-growing price of printing a traditional tabloid-size newspaper (from burning the plates, to setup on the presses, to the waste of newsprint, to the inevitable growing pile of extra bundles), there is the simple reality that they are too cumbersome in today's environment.

That said, relying solely on a website for the publishing of news and information is a problem. As someone pointed out above, there are many older workers and those in the working poor who do not have computers or Internet access, and the only way to reach these brothers and sisters is through print media. Personally, I think the argument that paying for a publication insures people keep it and read it is false. I've seen plenty of newspapers that people would pay for (Workers Vanguard, Socialist Action, Justice, Socialist Worker, The Militant, etc.) end up on the ground or in the trash at mass protests. It's not the price that causes people to keep the papers; it's the message and whether it resonates with those to whom you sell.

We've had a long-standing policy of free distribution for Working People's Advocate, and we've done "trash checks" at large events, too, but only find a small handful that end up in the garbage or on the ground. Even at events where we had distributed upwards of 5,000 copies of WPA, our "ground/trash loss" was only a few dozen.

In the end, I think it's message and portability that make for successful distribution. It has to be able to grab the reader and convince them of the need to keep it, as well as be in a format that can be easily stored away while they are on their way to other things.

[Pretty Flaco]

Not Really

Really? Because who's gonna read it?

[ellipsis]

I think print media is vital for agit-prop, when you are talking to people IRL you can't give them a digital file they can read on the bus ride home.

[Q]

I think print media is vital for agit-prop, when you are talking to people IRL you can't give them a digital file they can read on the bus ride home.

Not yet anyway. With current technological advancements, I expect this to be rather common in a few years actually. You just put up a sign with a QR code on it and people will get your leaflet / paper / stuff digitally.

[ellipsis]

And everybody has a smart phone for that?

[Q]

And everybody has a smart phone for that?

Smart phones were highly scifi even ten years ago. In a few years time, you'll see interactive milk packages with little dogs that are barking the words that they're missing.

[Prometeo liberado]

So, leftist papers are basically a very expensive form of pickup line?

You don't need a paper to talk to people. Leaflets often do quite as well and I'm sure there are many other ways to think of.

Very simplistic response. But I'll go there. What determines whether someone will give the paper any attention in the first place? From the initial contact they have with the seller.

[Kassad]

To be really honest, this thread reeks of elitism. I've spent a lot of time selling/distributing communist literature and though I now disagree with the groups I've worked with, I don't think that newspaper distribution is ineffective. You've got a website? Awesome. Do you know how many people in this country, especially working people, the homeless and unemployed, don't have access to the internet? Hell, a lot of them don't have access to a mobile phone.

Print publication is the most effective way of reaching these people and suggesting that it's obsolete because of this new "technological age" is pompous bullshit. I know a lot of the folks at demonstrations could scan a bar code or look us up on their iPad, but a lot of people can't and frankly, those who can't are often those who have trouble integrating into social movements like Occupy Wall Street.

Do I think groups need to show up to actions and struggles with a 5,000+ fat stack of newspapers? No, but I do think print literature is incredibly effective in getting interest going and especially reaching out to a lot of disenfranchised people. Hit up a homeless shelter at the same time for a few weeks and tell me that people won't approach you if you've given them literature before. I've been stunned by how many people have said "I've seen that around!" to me when I've never spoken a word to them in my life.

[Binh]

It all depends on the circumstances.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks didn't sell Iskra.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It all depends on the circumstances.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks didn't sell Iskra.

You sure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda

[Binh]

You sure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda

Pravda and Iskra were two very different papers and you linked to a Wikipedia article to Pravda. :laugh:

Pravda wasn't originally a Bolshevik paper either. It was a joint Menshevik-Bolshevik paper when it was launched in 1912. In 1917 when it re-opened it was the organ of the Bolsheviks. It was sold in 1912 because it was written mostly by workers, not by intellectuals or party propagandists, so it was "for us, by us" -- selling the paper was part of the self-organization of the working class.

Occupied Wall Street Journal is free and far more widely read than any paper sold by the socialist left.

[Highfructosecornsyrup]

I agree with a lot of the arguments made here about the utility of a paper for leftist organizations.

But I think a related issue is the internal culture of leftist organizations and how within some organizations the act of selling papers is elevated to the central task which defines the boundaries of membership.

[Angry Young Man]

I'll come out in favour of papers (there should have been a poll). If an organisation doesn't have a means for expressing their angle on current affairs then it isn't up to much. Yes, put everything on the internet, but I think it's better to have something physical. On stalls, we usually give leftover papers away for free.

[Brosip Tito]

So long as it isn't sold for a profit, I have no qualms with it. It's a good way to spread information.